The name Hadi Hatim, Deputy CEO of Bank Mellat, is mentioned in the financial dealings case of Khorshid Gazdarazi, President of the Bushehr Chamber of Commerce, as a banking supporter, business partner in corruption, and part of the money laundering arm of this group in the matter of fulfilling currency obligations. The manager whose allegations range from facilitating the flow of funds for the Gazdarazi network to providing credit support for affiliated paper companies and accepting commitments for car imports.
The focus of this case is the use of managerial power in a bank to secure the interests of an economic circle whose activities are intertwined with the commercial cards of others, cover companies, and currency transactions.
The concentration
of financial operations of the Gazdarazi group in Bank Mellat, interference in the decisions of Bushehr branches, preferential treatment of related companies, and a letter of credit for 50 million euros are the main components of the allegation of misuse of the bank's capacity. The importance of the case lies in the connection of these actions: access to cards and companies on one side of the chain and access to accounts, credit, and banking commitments on the other; a combination that can place the responsibility of transactions on nominal owners and bring the benefit to the main operators.
An Old Relationship; From Bushehr to Central Management of Bank Mellat
Hatim is one of the experienced managers of Bank Mellat. In 2017, he was in charge of the Isfahan province branches and in 2018, he was introduced as the manager of District Three. His name appears in reports of subsequent years and recent news among the deputy CEOs of Bank Mellat; a path that has led from provincial and regional management to senior levels of the bank.
In the narrative of this case, Hatim and Gazdarazi's acquaintance dates back to his banking responsibilities in Bushehr and continues with Hatim's administrative advancement. The main accusation is turning this old relationship into a support for Gazdarazi's economic activities and his close associates during Hatim's tenure in central management.
“Old Partnership” of these two is also discussed in this context. The issue is not just accelerating a customer's affairs; the accusation is using organizational authority to create advantages, facilitate access to resources, and remove obstacles that other applicants must overcome. If the bank manager's interests align with the customer's, credit decisions lose independence and organizational power serves personal relationships.
In such
relationships, the cost of decisions falls on the bank, but the benefit can be divided within the private circle. This separation between the beneficiary and the obligor has made the relationship between Hatim and Gazdarazi a significant part of the case.
Others' Commercial Cards; Benefit for the Network, Responsibility for Nominal Owners
The economic network around the Bushehr Chamber of Commerce is accused of using commercial cards of others and creating companies whose nominal owners are not the real operators of the transactions. Capital and decision-making fall under the main circle, but exports, imports, and tax and currency consequences are registered in the names of other individuals.
In the currency section, the accusations are directed at using these companies to cover petrochemical and steel export transactions: fictitious order registration, presenting invoices with unrealistic value, and using goods documents to display the consumption of export currency. The result of such a mechanism is creating a distance between the real owner of the transaction and the person whose name appears in official documents.
The role attributed to Bank Mellat is providing the financial infrastructure for this chain; accounts for receiving resources, transferring funds between individuals and companies, and approvals that give commercial activity credibility. The managerial support attributed to Hatim also finds meaning at this point: providing the possibility of activity for a collection that cannot complete its financial chain without the cooperation of branches and banking units. In the initial information of the case, Bank Mellat's share of the financial activities related to the Bushehr Chamber is described as about 90 percent and keeping all the chamber's resources in this bank is also mentioned. The concentration of resources gives the bank management more power and responsibility; especially when it comes to fictitious credit, unsupported guarantees, and paper company facilities.
The accusation
of Hatim's influence is precisely related to using this concentration to secure the
interests of the Gazdarazi network: providing managers and related companies with
credit to receive currency resources, accepting guarantees without sufficient backing,
and granting facilities to collections whose financial capability does not match their
volume of activity.
Bushehr Branches; Bribery Allegations and Pressure on Opposing Managers
Mehrdad Gazdarazi, Abuzar Gazdarazi, and Milad Khezri, trusted individuals of Khorshid Gazdarazi's office, have been named in the executive section of the case. Their accusation is attracting the cooperation of bank employees and administrative devices through bribery or granting privileges; a method that can render administrative control ineffective from within.
Muslim Mokhtari, responsible for Bank Mellat Bushehr, is also mentioned as the link between Hatim in central management and the Khorshid Gazdarazi network. Cooperation of local management with this circle and the transfer of branch managers opposing its requests are other accusations in the case. The names of branches, details of transferred managers, and related orders have not been provided in the current documents.
Transferring a manager due to resistance against an irregular request has a meaning beyond an administrative relocation: it sends a message to other employees that they must personally bear the cost of opposition. In such an environment, evaluating a customer's credit gives way to calculating the power of their connections, and the branch manager's signature is placed under the pressure of the hierarchy.
The role
attributed to Hatim in this section is using the position of Deputy CEO to support this
chain. Orders, correspondences, and decision-making paths determine the responsibility
of each official; because influence in the bank is exercised through specific decisions,
from approving a request to changing the head of a branch.
50 Million Euro Credit; Bank's Commitment for Whose Benefit?
Issuing a letter regarding the Gazdarazi-related collection's enjoyment of 50 million euro credit is the most specific financial accusation in this case. Hatim's signature and the Deputy International Affairs of Bank Mellat are attributed to a letter addressed to the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade, the subject of which is accepting a banking commitment related to the Gazdarazi collection's car import activity.
This correspondence, if aligned with the provided description, takes the relationship from the level of administrative cooperation to accepting financial responsibility for the bank. The bank stands behind a collection with its organizational credit and accepts the consequences of the commitment; while the commercial benefit of imports goes to the customer.
The nature of the document is decisive in this matter. Confirmation of balance, declaration of financial capability, and issuance of a guarantee do not create the same commitment. In the financial axis of the case, the dispersion of Gazdarazi's resources among fictitious accounts and family members' accounts is contrasted with the confirmation of 50 million euro credit. The accusation is confirming a financial capacity whose real backing and accessibility are disputed.
It has also been suggested that the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade, due to doubts about the financial capability of the collection, demanded a direct guarantee from Bank Mellat. In this case, the responsibility for accepting the commitment falls on the officials who have involved the bank's credit in the transaction with their signatures. The collaterals received, the credit resolution, and the signatories' authority limits will form the basis for determining this responsibility.
According
to informed sources, the commitment was accepted without sufficient guarantee and
also raised the sensitivity of Bank Mellat's security department. This section
aggravates the case's accusation: accepting risk for the bank, in conditions where
the customer's backing and the adequacy of their guarantees were questioned.
Family Holding; Extending the Accusation from Administrative Position to Personal Benefit
The establishment of a holding by Hatim's young son and its activity in the location of a charity in Tehran is another axis of the case. The accusation regarding this collection is its use for money laundering and fund transfers between Hatim and Gazdarazi; also its connection with transactions of fictitious companies and commercial cards issued in the names of various individuals through the management of the Bushehr Chamber.
The legal name of the holding, the charity's details, and its transaction documents are not included in the current documents. However, the substance of the accusation is clear: using a family collection to transfer benefits derived from a relationship where one side holds managerial power in the bank and the other side is the Gazdarazi commercial network.
If this
financial connection is established, the case goes beyond preferential support for a
customer and reaches the personal benefit of the bank manager. Therefore, the flow of
funds of this collection, its connection with the companies involved in the transaction,
and the identity of the final recipients of the money are of direct importance.
Fulfilling Currency Obligations of Petrochemicals and Steel Companies; Connecting Cover Companies to Banking Services
Another part of the case is the cooperation attributed to the Bushehr Chamber of Commerce with petrochemical and steel companies in fulfilling export currency obligations. In the accused mechanism, the circle around Khorshid Gazdarazi connects these companies to a network of commercial cards, cover companies, and banking services. Gazdarazi's connections and his attributed influence in joint chambers with Kuwait and Qatar are also mentioned in providing the possibility of invoice fabrication and forgery of export and import documents.
Companies are registered in the names of individuals lacking financial capability and commercial background, but the capital and guidance of transactions remain under the control of the Gazdarazi family network. In the next stage, exports in the names of these individuals, fictitious order registrations, and over-declaration of goods value in invoices provide a cover to display the consumption of export currency with the aim of apparent obligation settlement, without the actual return of currency through the announced route. The role attributed to Hatim and Bank Mellat is financial support for these operations: fund transfers among related accounts, facilitating services for intermediary companies, and providing credit used by the network. In this accusation, the commercial card provides the apparent identity of the transaction, the cover company increases the distance between the operator and the transaction, and banking services enable the transfer of resources.
The 50 million euro letter, guarantees, and facilities, decisions of Bushehr branches, and the financial flow of intermediary companies are not isolated components; in this case, they all relate to the accusation of using Bank Mellat's credit and facilities for the benefit of the Gazdarazi network. Hatim's responsibility is also measured by the signatures and decisions that have placed the bank's credit at the disposal of this collection; decisions whose benefit, cost, and risk must be clarified in the accounts of the relevant individuals and institutions.
This
chain connects the responsibility of the chamber and the bank to each other. If
commercial documents are arranged to cover a real transaction, matching them with
account flows can reveal the difference between the registered amount, the actual
goods, and the final recipient of the money. This connection is the axis of the
accusation of money laundering and concealing the identity of beneficiaries in the
case.
